Meeting Lofty Standards
There's that about the European Union; in a concerted effort to remove differences, to broaden opportunities and level the playing field, everything is regulated, every country held to the same rigid standards of performance and production. Complete uniformity is the order of the EU, and let no one think otherwise. In the process of meeting those standards, ages-old production methods, tried and true and representing pride of accomplishment are abandoned.
That's one of the prices to pay for standardization, for insisting on an unassailable level of neutralized conformity whose purpose is to strengthen unity, and present a common facade to the world at large. Mind, a whole lot of people thought they were going a little too far, taking things to extremes when agricultural standards became rigidly imposed on the entire unit. Standards that would impose perfection of shape and size, for example on the shapes of fruits and vegetables.
Crooked cucumbers? Discard, immediately, not up to standard. Carrots resembling a forked tongue, horrors, never! Bananas too awkwardly and suggestively curved - into the compost bin! Discard, discard...! Selectivity for perfection of aesthetic appearance, let alone standards for taste and transportability make for a very testy market, with farmers no doubt cursing shape-obsessed bureaucratic decision-making.
And then, and then, the impracticality of all that wasted food suddenly impales the European Union on the painful stench of waste through its absurd search for perfection in a world suddenly discovering itself to be in the throes of an acute food shortage. As of almost now, the European Commission will take steps to reform its strict governing on such vital matters as the uniformity of leek colouration, and the shape and size of melons.
Britain, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Germany are all for reform of the rigid standards, while France, Spain, Italy and a few others are on the opposition end of the spectrum. In the meantime, the prevailing strictness of the standards are such that thousands of tons of fruit and vegetables are discarded annually because of an unsupportable, perceived inadequacy in conformation.
So farmers toss tons of cherries, onions, peas, plums and spinach, along with a host of other fresh-grown market edibles. Market traders, even if they proceed to bring these "inadequate" types of produce to market find themselves black-listed because their sale is disallowed by current regulations, and they've no choice but to swallow sales losses. Kiwi smaller than allowed? Ditch them.
The light of reason has dawned. "In these days of high food prices, it's silly to throw stuff away", claims a spokesperson for the commission, now. "It doesn't make sense." Well, the question they might be asking themselves is, did it ever make sense? Was it ever less than a waste? Did it ever represent anything but arrogant condescension to consumers' needs?
With the clout of the EU and their sanctimonious agonizing over world food shortages, why wasn't this food, ostensibly not good enough for sale, shipped to where it could be used, by food-desperate people? Those whose governments have had to brace themselves against the desperate anger of hunger expressed through food riots. This isn't a generous gesture, to offer excess or unwanted food, it's a prime obligation.
Facing reality and owning up to senseless bureaucratic stupidity, the commission should shamefacedly allow that it's criminally absurd to discard tomatoes, apples, pears, strawberries, lettuce and kiwi fruit because of a perceived lack of aesthetic appeal. When even minimum standards aren't met in conformation, these foods can't even be sold as second-class produce.
To do so would reflect poorly on the truly ridiculous standards that the European Commission has imposed on itself. Ech! Waste not, want not.
That's one of the prices to pay for standardization, for insisting on an unassailable level of neutralized conformity whose purpose is to strengthen unity, and present a common facade to the world at large. Mind, a whole lot of people thought they were going a little too far, taking things to extremes when agricultural standards became rigidly imposed on the entire unit. Standards that would impose perfection of shape and size, for example on the shapes of fruits and vegetables.
Crooked cucumbers? Discard, immediately, not up to standard. Carrots resembling a forked tongue, horrors, never! Bananas too awkwardly and suggestively curved - into the compost bin! Discard, discard...! Selectivity for perfection of aesthetic appearance, let alone standards for taste and transportability make for a very testy market, with farmers no doubt cursing shape-obsessed bureaucratic decision-making.
And then, and then, the impracticality of all that wasted food suddenly impales the European Union on the painful stench of waste through its absurd search for perfection in a world suddenly discovering itself to be in the throes of an acute food shortage. As of almost now, the European Commission will take steps to reform its strict governing on such vital matters as the uniformity of leek colouration, and the shape and size of melons.
Britain, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Germany are all for reform of the rigid standards, while France, Spain, Italy and a few others are on the opposition end of the spectrum. In the meantime, the prevailing strictness of the standards are such that thousands of tons of fruit and vegetables are discarded annually because of an unsupportable, perceived inadequacy in conformation.
So farmers toss tons of cherries, onions, peas, plums and spinach, along with a host of other fresh-grown market edibles. Market traders, even if they proceed to bring these "inadequate" types of produce to market find themselves black-listed because their sale is disallowed by current regulations, and they've no choice but to swallow sales losses. Kiwi smaller than allowed? Ditch them.
The light of reason has dawned. "In these days of high food prices, it's silly to throw stuff away", claims a spokesperson for the commission, now. "It doesn't make sense." Well, the question they might be asking themselves is, did it ever make sense? Was it ever less than a waste? Did it ever represent anything but arrogant condescension to consumers' needs?
With the clout of the EU and their sanctimonious agonizing over world food shortages, why wasn't this food, ostensibly not good enough for sale, shipped to where it could be used, by food-desperate people? Those whose governments have had to brace themselves against the desperate anger of hunger expressed through food riots. This isn't a generous gesture, to offer excess or unwanted food, it's a prime obligation.
Facing reality and owning up to senseless bureaucratic stupidity, the commission should shamefacedly allow that it's criminally absurd to discard tomatoes, apples, pears, strawberries, lettuce and kiwi fruit because of a perceived lack of aesthetic appeal. When even minimum standards aren't met in conformation, these foods can't even be sold as second-class produce.
To do so would reflect poorly on the truly ridiculous standards that the European Commission has imposed on itself. Ech! Waste not, want not.
Labels: Agriculture, Politics of Convenience, Traditions
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home